Joe North

Jesus loving, Girl dad (5), Grandpa (4) Bible nerd, FP, don’t care about creeds or denominations. Love God and love others as self.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@CherylSchatz @KenElderReal1 If you really think through the scenario he is painting and his graphic telling of it, there’s something wrong with these people. Like maybe they have a false view of the nature and character of God that perverts their entire worldview?!? They want God to destroy everyone!

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz If Calvinism is true, then God decreed me to believe it until seven years ago and now He has decreed that I reject it, make that make sense.

The truth is I/we have the volition to choose to accept or reject Him all on our own. The offer of the gospel is universal, not limited.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz Also, we know the divine plan, it’s the gospel, Gods plan of redemption. Whosoever will believe will become children of God.

Calvinism does not demonstrate a loving Father, but rather a maniacal puppet master who refuses to allow some people to believe.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz With all due respect you need to dig deeper into the teachings of the men you mentioned. They absolutely believe that God decreed everything that has or ever will happen. I spent years claiming Calvinism until I really studied it, it is fatalism, so I determined to reject it.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz The reformed movement may not be fatalistic but Calvinism is. Fatalism by definition is that God has decreed everything that has happened or ever will happen, and that man has no autonomy to make decisions by his/her own volition. We are not puppets on a divine string.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz Sovereignty is apparently the only attribute Calvinists know, because they ignore that He IS love, He IS good, and He IS just. All of which contradicts the fatalism of Calvinism, and points to a loving Father that’s gives His children the autonomy to choose right or wrong.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@roamingtogank @CherylSchatz Your own words contradict your argument. God could absolutely prevent everything, if that was how He chose to run the world. But He doesn’t and we don’t live in a perfect world, it’s full of evil because He gives us the agency to do good and evil so that we can freely choose Him.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Bayer76L @nicksortor A complete betrayal of MAGA and America First principles that got Trump elected is what’s causing his and the GOPs downfall.

The destruction of the uniparty is what needs to happen if we want America to thrive again, and Trump has proven he’s not the man for the job!

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@amconmag Does anyone fact check all these claims that he’s making?!?

If Iran was as truly devastated as he says, the straight of Hormuz would be freely open and he would have declared victory already. And, there wouldn’t be tactical nuclear weapons being discussed! He’s full of bullshit!

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@jesuswalks206 @FrankLets78822 I’ll call and raise you 1 Timothy 4:10.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@jesuswalks206 @FrankLets78822 Philosophically speaking; if Gods desire/will is to reconcile Himself to all mankind, and that’s been His plan since the fall of Adam, is it possible that He will ultimately reconcile Himself to all mankind? Is His plan of redemption far greater than we even think?

1 Tim 4:10

[Dahlia @Fulfilled70]

This is the best explanation as to why Adam was in covenant with God I have heard. Long but well worth the read.

_____

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗗𝗔𝗠 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦?
𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 | 𝐁𝐲 𝐓𝐲𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 | 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 |
In our previous investigation, we began with one statement from Paul:
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…”
—Romans 5:14
That statement led us to our first question:
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?
Rather than beginning with an assumed or traditional definition of death, we followed Paul’s argument and allowed his own terminology to guide us.
Paul led us through a consistent pattern:
𝗟𝗔𝗪 → 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 → 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 → 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛
Standing opposite:
𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗘𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 → 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 → 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘
Following that pattern led us to understand the death Paul was describing as 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵—death resulting from judgment brought about by the transgression of Law.
But identifying the death was only the beginning.
Because Paul doesn’t simply tell us that death reigned.
He places that reign within a specific time frame:
𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗔𝗗𝗔𝗠 𝗧𝗢 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗦.
And that raises the next question in our investigation:
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀?
But before we can answer that question, there is something we need to establish first.
Paul calls Adam’s act a 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
And Paul has already told us:
“…where no law is, there is no transgression.”
—Romans 4:15
So if Adam transgressed, there had to be Law.
Which gives us the question that will guide this investigation:
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗗𝗔𝗠 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦?
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗔𝗗𝗔𝗠 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗗
To answer that question, we need to go back to one of the most familiar passages in the entire Bible: Genesis 2:16–17.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
—Genesis 2:16–17
There is the Law.
God gave Adam a command.
He could freely eat from the trees of the garden, but one tree was prohibited.
And attached to the transgression of that command was a specific judgment:
“…thou shalt surely die.”
So Paul’s language now has a clear point of contact in Genesis.
There was Law.
Adam violated that Law.
Paul calls that violation 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
And death was the stated consequence.
But if we stop there, we haven’t yet seen the entire picture.
Because the command wasn’t given in isolation.
It existed within a relationship.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗘𝗫𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡 𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣
Before God gave Adam the prohibition concerning the tree, Genesis tells us:
“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”
—Genesis 2:15
Notice the order.
God places Adam in the garden.
Adam is given a place.
He is given responsibility.
Then God gives him the command governing his conduct within that relationship.
And with the command comes a consequence for transgression.
So we’re not looking at a rule standing by itself.
We’re looking at:
𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣
↓
𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬
↓
𝗟𝗔𝗪
↓
𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘
And this is where the relationship between 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 and 𝗟𝗮𝘄 becomes important.
They aren’t the same thing.
The covenant establishes the relationship.
The Law governs conduct within that relationship.
And transgression is the violation of the Law governing that relationship.
That means Adam wasn’t simply given an isolated command.
He was in a covenant relationship with God, and that relationship was governed by Law.
Now look again at what was placed before him.
𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘, 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛, 𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘
The warning attached to the command is clear:
“…in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
—Genesis 2:17
But death wasn’t the only reality before Adam.
Genesis had already told us:
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden…”
—Genesis 2:9
Adam had been placed in the garden with access to its provision and to the tree of life.
As long as he remained faithful to the command God had given him, he remained in the place of life and blessing.
Transgression, however, carried another outcome:
𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛.
So the two sides of the relationship begin to emerge:
𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 → 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘 / 𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚
𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 → 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 / 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛 / 𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘
Now, someone may ask:
Were the trees real?
Or were they symbolic?
The text doesn’t require us to choose between the two.
Genesis presents the trees as part of the garden, but they also function within the covenant relationship God established with Adam.
The tree of life is connected in the narrative to continued access to life and blessing.
The prohibited tree marked the boundary of God’s command.
The issue was not that the fruit itself was magically deadly.
The issue was transgression.
Adam crossed the boundary God had established.
He violated the Law governing the relationship.
And judgment followed.
So when we talk about the trees, we’re not turning the passage into an abstract symbol.
We’re recognizing how the trees function within the narrative.
One stood connected to life and blessing.
The other stood as the boundary of command, transgression, judgment, and death.
And Adam transgressed.
So what happened?
Genesis tells us.
The judgment God had warned about was pronounced.
The ground was cursed.
And Adam was removed from the garden.
“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden…”
—Genesis 3:23
Then the next verse says:
“So he drove out the man…”
—Genesis 3:24
And access to the tree of life was restricted.
Now we’re beginning to see something important about the death we’ve been investigating.
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗪𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡 𝗕𝗬 “𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛”?
In our previous investigation, we identified Paul’s death as 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵.
Now Genesis is helping us see more clearly what that means.
Covenant death isn’t simply another theological term for death.
It describes what happens when the Law governing a covenant relationship is transgressed.
The relationship is established.
Law governs that relationship.
The Law is transgressed.
Judgment follows.
And the transgressor is separated from the life and blessing of that covenant relationship.
That is exactly what we see happen with Adam.
And there’s something else we shouldn’t overlook.
God had said:
“…in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Yet Adam did not physically die that day.
So what happened 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗮𝘆?
The Law was transgressed.
Judgment was pronounced.
The ground was cursed.
Adam was driven out.
And access to the tree of life was restricted.
Whatever death God had threatened, the narrative itself connects it directly to 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, and 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴.
And now the pattern is much clearer:
𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣
↓
𝗟𝗔𝗪
↓
𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 / 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
↓
𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘 / 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
↓
𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 / 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛
𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗗𝗔𝗠 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦?
Now we can answer the question directly.
The Law Adam transgressed was the command God gave concerning the tree:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it…”
—Genesis 2:17
That was the immediate Law.
But the command was not an isolated rule.
It governed Adam’s covenant relationship with God.
Adam had been placed in the garden.
He had been given responsibility.
He had access to life and blessing.
And the command concerning the tree established the boundary he was not to cross.
When Adam ate, he did more than disobey a rule.
He transgressed the Law governing his covenant relationship with God.
That transgression brought judgment.
And that judgment brought death.
So the answer is this:
𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲—𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝘁—𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗚𝗼𝗱.
That is why Paul can call Adam’s act a 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
Because where there is transgression, there is Law.
And where that Law is transgressed, judgment follows.
𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗟𝗘𝗗 𝗨𝗦?
We began by asking:
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀?
Genesis gave us the command.
But following that command through the narrative revealed something larger.
Adam was in a 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗚𝗼𝗱.
Within that relationship, God gave him Law.
That Law governed his conduct and carried consequences.
On one side stood obedience, life, and blessing.
On the other stood transgression, judgment, death, and curse.
Adam transgressed.
Judgment followed.
And Adam was removed from the place of life and blessing in which God had established him.
So on the 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗺 side of Paul’s statement, the text has given us:
𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗧.
𝗟𝗔𝗪.
𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘.
𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡.
𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘.
𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚.
𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧.
𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗛.
𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘.
Now let’s return one more time to Paul’s statement:
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…”
—Romans 5:14
We’ve investigated Adam.
But Paul gave us another boundary:
𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗦.
And now the question we began with comes back into view:
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀?
We now know what we found on the Adam side.
The next step isn’t to assume what Moses means.
It’s to investigate Moses the same way.
When we arrive at Moses, what does the text give us?
Do we once again find covenant relationship and Law?
Do we once again find obedience and transgression?
Do we once again find life and blessing standing opposite death and curse?
If so, what does that tell us about the time frame Paul deliberately gave us?
We won’t assume the answer.
We’ll let the Scripture lead us there.
𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗧 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗦?

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@AFpost Since when has America First stood for being a Zionist shill?!?

Candace owned him!!

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@CodySte06187838 What’s the difference between YAH and Yahweh, I’ve seen this recently and it’s new to me?

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Be_Like_JChrist And I believe all of the special gifts for the transition between the OC and NC have ceased. You are convinced and so am I so we’re going to have to agree to disagree. ✌️

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Be_Like_JChrist @jtb19611961 I have to prove that I’m not an atheist?!?

I don’t care if you dance with snakes, speak gibberish or whatever you want to do in your church. But calling people that don’t do it atheist or not walking with Christ is out of bounds.

I don’t know if you’re lying and I don’t care.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Be_Like_JChrist @jtb19611961 Be specific now because that’s a bold claim to make against a brother in Christ…how do I sound like an atheist?
M

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Be_Like_JChrist @jtb19611961 I think God can do anything, but I’m asking for proof of your claims.

I have no desire to disprove it if it’s true, but the burden is on you to prove that claim.

[Joe North @JoeNorthR828]

@Be_Like_JChrist @jtb19611961 Video evidence? And other people other than his followers witnessed and recorded it with independent verification that the person was dead.